What actual reference source makes such a definition? Not the encyclopedia, dictionary, or any text books I have read. If my source actually makes the claim, please quote it, but if you believe it infers that definition that is another matter.

Again, notice that the point that capitalism merely refers to private ownership of the means of production is wrong. It gets worse when you consider state capitalism.

This is an abstract for a paper on the subject of capitalism rather than a definition, so there will be more depth and nuance, but I do not see the critical requirement for contiual growth listed. If it is such an important part of a definition and one you have been asked to show any referenced support, I would expect a "good" definition to have that necessary aspcet clearly listed. Yet I do not see it, but I do see a reference to private ownership.

Capitalism is a unique historical formation with core institutions and distinct movements. It involves the rise of a mercantile class, the separation of production from the state, and a mentality of rational calculation. Its characteristic logic revolving around the accumulation of capital reflects the omnipresence of competition. It displays broad tendencies to unprecedented wealth creation, skewed size distributions of enterprise, large public sectors, and cycles of activity. Whereas students of capitalism traditionally envisaged an end to the capitalist period of history, modern economists show little interest in historical projection.

Quote:

Quote:

No, you can have growth without profit and you can have profit without growth. They often go together, but it is not a requirement as has been claimed.

You cannot have growth without profit, unless by growth you are referring to something else, like feeling good about yourself as your business is falling apart.

You seem to be clueless. You can grow and still not make a profit on that growth. You can also grow and remove the profit you had at a previous level. It has been done in the past and can be found today. You can also have profit without any growth. That has been done in the past and can also be found today. Growth is not required for profit and profit is not required for growth, it is that simple. The former can be sustained but the latter cannot. The problem is sustainibility is not required in the general statement you made.

Quote:

You cannot have non-growth without profit because your profit is the net income of the firm, which means its wealth grew. That's painfully obvious.

Now you seem to be using a completely different definition of "growth" than before.

Quote:

Perhaps you are referring to comparisons of sales across two years. In which case, you can have profit without growth as your revenues decline from year to year while remaining higher than your costs, but if you cannot reverse the trend, then your profits will reach zero.

You seem to assume that without growth as you had previously defined it (not the new adding wealth to the company via profit) there must be decline. This is also false. A steady state of sales will generate the same range of profit potential as growth. You can increase the profit by reducing costs. You can maintain the same profit by keeping the same cost to selling price ratio so any cost increases result in proportional selling price increases. You can also have less profit if you increase the costs without the same ration of selling price increase.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, but having profits does not mean one is growing, just that the sale price to cost ratio is more in your favor. That is not always the case with growth because the additional overhead costs generated may result in a negative impact on net profit.

Any additional overhead costs are supposed to be part of your total cost. Your net profit is the difference between your total revenues and your total costs.

Yes, that is the definition of net profit, but that is not the only definition of profit. Gross profit is also called profit and that is the differential between selling price and cost.

Quote:

If you want to maintain or increase your profits for the next fiscal year, especially to pay for those additional costs, then you have to increase either prices of goods sold or production. Given competition, you will very likely do the latter.

If you do not increase costs or selling prices and do not decrease the selling price, you will maintain the same profit as in the previous period. If you want to increase your profit, you can increase the price, increase the volume, add new products or services, or decrease the costs. All are possible in the current economy.

Quote:

Quote:

Except when there is a global recession or depression and the expanding markets are largely gone. The only markets that will always expand with population are those required for survival.

Indeed, which is why capitalism is not sustainable.

Using your flawed definition, but that is why we disagree on the definition.

Quote:

As I explained to you many times, capitalism requires growth, and that essentially leads to expanding markets

.

You mean growth as in profit? That is different from the growth in wealth you switched to earlier. In either case your logic is flawed as there is not such requirement. It is a goal for many groups, but NOT a requirement for a capitalistic economy.

Quote:

If resource availability compounded by environmental damage and global warming cannot meet the demands of those markets, then prices start to go up, made worse by unregulated financial speculation (another quality of free market capitalism). And when resource availability starts dropping, the situation worsens.

Which would happen with any economic system, would it not? Your argument does not track with any logic with which I am familiar and with the lack of supprting evidence and changing definitions it seems said logic is not supportable.

Quote:

Quote:

Which really has nothing to do with the discussion at all.

Actually, they do, as those are your expanding markets, and deflates your simplistic view of supply and demand.

They may be expanding markets, but they are not required specifically for a capitalistic economy so they do not apply to the REQUIREMENT you claim is part of capitalism.

Quote:

Quote:

You can do that without growth. You have started with a false assumption and it confuses you. Companies can provide raises without growth if they choose to make less profit. This is not uncommon in a workforce with specific skill sets. This is why companies in bad financial shape often hire leadership with much higher costs than the norm. You can also provide a better ROI even without growth, just by reducing costs. That is why the stock market is showing records when unemployment is so high. You just have trouble doing both at the same time. It is not impossible, just harder.

Less profit is not the same as no profit.

It is a good thing I did not make such a flawed claim.

Quote:

You can reduce costs but only to a certain point, after which you need to raise production.

Or raise the selling price. The whole supply and demand aspect still eludes you. If there is an equilbirium between production (supply)and and the market (demand) the increase in production will not increase profit in the segment as a whole. An individual company may ncrease production if they capture more of the market share than before. If not the profit will decline because there is additional costs of materials and production for unsold product, which either must be sold at a discount or stored.

Quote:

It gets worse when your competitor decides to reduce costs by increasing production.

Then the selling prices would decline and the profits for all would decline UNLESS there is the expanding market you claim always exists. The problem is there is no requirement for increasing production to increase profit because those running businesses have a better grasp of economics than do you.

Quote:

In which case, he can meet expanding markets, which you can't.

Assuming there is an expanding market, but then again the use of circular logic would be a small step in your flawed logic.

Quote:

And when he does start reducing costs, he does so while getting a larger market share than you do. This will entice people to invest in his business and not in yours even as the ROI may be the same.

Increasing production does not reduce cost if the production levels are not below that which the current managment can handle, materials costs are reduced by increased volume rather than increasing due to greater demand, and a bevy of other variables.

Quote:

In which case, don't expect the phenomenon of "the stock market...showing records when unemployment is so high" to last. That capitalist system will eventually fall apart.

The one you envision, maybe. The one we have in the real world? Not, likely at this point.

Quote:

Quote:

Connecting them is far from the requirement as you have stated. If they are required, why does it not state that as such and not require the assumption?

Because you have to figure it out yourself.

That makes it more of an unsupported opinion rather than a clear definitional requirement.

Quote:

Why is there a need for economic growth (i.e., an increase in GDP) for various capitalist economies? Why do businesses want to profit? Why the references to automation and the desire for higher-paying jobs?

Wanting to grow is not the same as being required to grow. It seems we have changed the definition of "growth" again.

Quote:

Don't expect to be spoon-fed on this issue. You need to look at more comprehensive sources that are not found online.

You mean like working for a Fortune 100 company for a couple of decades, starting my own company, and running it for a couple of decades? Direct responsibility for profit and loss counts right? You know that only a small percentage of companies survive the first five years and to survive for an extended period generally requires more than basic knowledge of business and econimics, right?

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, economic growth requires growth. Capitalism does not.

The first sentence is a circular argument.

Yes, but you still used it didn't you. That is the only way you can claim the increase in GDP is required because there has been an increase in GDP.

Quote:

Capitalism requires growth for reasons I've explained to you earlier.

Except your explanation is based on flawed logic and unsupported assumptions as we have expalined to you earlier.

Quote:

Don't assume that given a depression, recession, businesses losing money, capitalists cutting down on wage costs, etc., then capitalism doesn't require growth. It's not as if participants in such a system deliberately want these to happen.

Wanting something to happen is not the point, you claimed growth is a requirement. If there is no growth the requirement is not met and capitalism fails and disappears .... except it did not.

Quote:

Quote:

Again, not a requirement of capitalism.

Again, a requirement of capitalism, as the same "masses" are essentially the consumers of goods manufactured and sold.

No, repeating the claim does not support the claim. The "essentially" connection show how weak your attempt to make the connection really is.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, but expanding production, taking out loans, or providing an increasing ROI is not required. If production is tuned to the market demand and is capable of meeting said demand there is no need for expansion. If there is no need for expansion there is no need for capital loans. If the ROI is sufficiently high there is no need to make it higher. There may be a desire to do so and expand, but that is not a requirement.

You're referring to a state capitalist system where producers work with each other and are "tuned to the market demand and is capable of meeting said demand," which is why "there is no need for expansion" except given an increase in demand.

No, I am not. I am speaking of the system in the US. If the companies produce the appropriate number of widgets the market consumes, there is no reason for any increase by the industry in general. Consumption of widgets is not infinite and if you increase production in excess of consumption you will decrease the profits more so than was reduced by the capital investments.

Quote:

But that's not what we're seeing, no? There is increased pressure for more surplus resources, if not a middle class lifestyle, even in countries like North Korea and Cuba, kept in check by dictatorial control. And even as these two countries and others experience what you might call "additional overhead costs," other countries have to help them by sending food, medicine, oil, etc.

I am not sure what you are seeing. You seem to bounce around changing definitions back and forth in the attempt to support the false claim made previously.

Quote:

Globally, we are also seeing a global middle class, with more people in BRIC and emerging markets wanting more beef, pork, eggs, medicine, electricity, cars, appliances, electronic gadgets, infrastructure to support them, and more.

That would not be the same with another ecnomic system that provided similar products and the ability to obtain them?

Quote:

Perhaps in some computer-generated fantasy world where producers are perfectly "tuned" to demand which doesn't increase significantly might be true, but the real world is far different from what you imagine.

Really? Why do manufacturers not slow production as demand drops if your model is correct? You grab anecdotal points in making general statements which are seriously flawed.

Quote:

In the end, what will stop that world of "expanding production, taking out loans, or providing an increasing ROI" will not be producers/overlords who will work in perfect sync with demand and even keep that demand in check but resource limitations coupled with long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming.

And off you go on a tangent ....

Quote:

Quote:

You keep thinking profit is growth, which means you lack the basics of business economics which is required for such a discussion.

But it is for obvious reasons!

No, it is not unless you change the definition of growth as you have done a few times in this post.

Quote:

To go back to your previous examples, when the stock market is going up, then that means people are profiting from sales of stocks. What else happens when you buy shares at a certain price and get to sell them at a higher price? And what do you think those who bought stocks want to happen? Hope that the market goes down?

If you short sale the stocks, yes. You can short sell and make a profit on stock prices which drop.

Quote:

When firms reduce costs by laying off people, then their net profit goes up. But they can't do that continuously, especially if their consumers essentially include more people who are now unemployed!

If there market is sufficiently large, yes they can.

Quote:

Do you see? Everyone wants to see economic growth, and that ultimately means more profits.

Yes, people WANT growth, but that does not make it a REQUIREMENT as we have been telling you all along.

Quote:

Quote:

So? Capitalism has been around a lot longer than forty years unless you are saying the requirement for growth is a recent addition to capitalism.

No. What I'm saying is that U.S. oil production started peaking only two years after the article was published, global oil production per capita peaked eleven years later, and conventional oil production peaked in 2005. Meanwhile, the requirement for growth has increased readily, with increasing demand from BRIC and emerging markets during the past two decades or so:

So your beliefs in the specifics of one economy refute the generalization of a capitalistic economy because you wish it to be so, but any specifics that refute your generalizations are not important. Do you not see a double standard in this position?

Quote:

In which case, one is better off not fantasizing about some steady state global economy with a central government taking full control of production and demand of goods.

No, that is your straw man, not my position.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Which one EXACTLY has this requirement. If you cannot support your claim I am not digging through a list of references looking for what I know does not exist.

See below. I will not spoon-feed you for the rest.

Quote:

This is an abstract for a paper on the subject of capitalism rather than a definition, so there will be more depth and nuance, but I do not see the critical requirement for contiual growth listed. If it is such an important part of a definition and one you have been asked to show any referenced support, I would expect a "good" definition to have that necessary aspcet clearly listed. Yet I do not see it, but I do see a reference to private ownership.

It is not an "abstract for a paper" but an abstract for a dictionary entry. You will not find a source online that is suitable for your needs unless you pay or look for published sources.

The reason for the growth requirement was explained to you numerous times: the profit earned from sales is plowed back into the business or in another business (if it's deposited in a bank). That's the capital needed to purchase capital goods, etc., and increase production.

The scenario that you are looking at is what resembles state capitalism, with authoritarian control over production and even demand, and likely based on the assumption of self-sufficiency (e.g., no need to import resources). This is the situation that takes place in countries such as Cuba and North Korea, except that they cannot ensure self-sufficiency, which means if devastating weather during one year destroys crops or oil prices go up, then the country is forced to seek surplus production from other countries.

Quote:

Capitalism is a unique historical formation with core institutions and distinct movements. It involves the rise of a mercantile class, the separation of production from the state, and a mentality of rational calculation. Its characteristic logic revolving around the accumulation of capital reflects the omnipresence of competition. It displays broad tendencies to unprecedented wealth creation, skewed size distributions of enterprise, large public sectors, and cycles of activity. Whereas students of capitalism traditionally envisaged an end to the capitalist period of history, modern economists show little interest in historical projection.

Notice that the only way to avoid "accumulation of capital" is to remove "competition." In short, your vision of capitalism is one that doesn't involve competition, such as a very centralized state capitalist economy with insignificant imports, and very likely authoritarian control over the populace.

Quote:

You seem to be clueless. You can grow and still not make a profit on that growth. You can also grow and remove the profit you had at a previous level. It has been done in the past and can be found today. You can also have profit without any growth. That has been done in the past and can also be found today. Growth is not required for profit and profit is not required for growth, it is that simple. The former can be sustained but the latter cannot. The problem is sustainibility is not required in the general statement you made.

You need to bring in competition, "additional overhead costs," etc.

For example, you can continue to increase production while increasing costs, which means flat or no profits. That's what you mean by growth without profits. But if your competitor can increase production as well while keeping his costs low, then he can sell the same goods as you do at a lower price. Soon, more will buy from him and not from you. He can also increase his production and sell to markets that you cannot reach, giving him a larger market share.

Quote:

Now you seem to be using a completely different definition of "growth" than before.

Growth can mean a profit, an increase in profit from the previous year, or an increase in production from the previous year. What state capitalism requires is an increase in production from the previous year to meet demand. For free market capitalism, businesses need to ultimately increase profits, even if it means sacrificing it to gain market share. Otherwise, as pointed out above, they will lose to their competitors.

National economies look at GDP, which consists of investments and spending. In order to attract foreign investors and to receive better lending terms, governments need to show positive GDP growth rates. I think the WB recommends a growth rate that is at least three times higher than the birth rate in order to maintain present spending levels. But if citizens want more houses, cars, better health care, roads, etc., then the growth rate has to be better.

Quote:

You seem to assume that without growth as you had previously defined it (not the new adding wealth to the company via profit) there must be decline. This is also false. A steady state of sales will generate the same range of profit potential as growth. You can increase the profit by reducing costs. You can maintain the same profit by keeping the same cost to selling price ratio so any cost increases result in proportional selling price increases. You can also have less profit if you increase the costs without the same ration of selling price increase.

A "steady state of sales" can take place as long as there's no competition. In this case, centralized control ensures that all businesses selling goods work together and produce only what is demanded. In a free market capitalist economy, however, some businesses may try to sell more goods as a lower price to increase market share, etc.

Quote:

Yes, that is the definition of net profit, but that is not the only definition of profit. Gross profit is also called profit and that is the differential between selling price and cost.

I am referring to net profit, because that's the one you can use to increase production, and if you keep your overhead costs the same, lead to lower prices of goods sold.

Given that, you only need to hope that there's either no competition or that your competitor will not make a net profit.

Quote:

If you do not increase costs or selling prices and do not decrease the selling price, you will maintain the same profit as in the previous period. If you want to increase your profit, you can increase the price, increase the volume, add new products or services, or decrease the costs. All are possible in the current economy.

Meanwhile, your competitor can choose to sell goods at a lower price and thus control a larger market share. He can also use his profits to increase production and reach a market that you can't.

I think what you have been trying to do is ignore competition and imagine some steady state economy guaranteed by some centralized, authoritarian control.

Quote:

Except when there is a global recession or depression and the expanding markets are largely gone. The only markets that will always expand with population are those required for survival.

Keep in mind that "a global recession or depression" is something that capitalists do not like. If any, you just proved my point.

Quote:

Using your flawed definition, but that is why we disagree on the definition.

Actually, I gave a concise definition. Your definition is flawed because it assumes that capitalism doesn't involve competition, and thus there is no need to profit, etc.

Quote:

You mean growth as in profit? That is different from the growth in wealth you switched to earlier. In either case your logic is flawed as there is not such requirement. It is a goal for many groups, but NOT a requirement for a capitalistic economy.

Again, don't be confused. I am referring to net profit, not gross profit.

It is a requirement for a capitalist economy because the net profit is the source of capital needed to increase production, either to meet increasing demand in state capitalist systems or because of competition, as seen in free market capitalist economies.

Several examples were already given, and even your own examples--concerning the stock market, etc.--are shown to be part of the same. Do you remember? I mentioned them in my previous message.

Quote:

If resource availability compounded by environmental damage and global warming cannot meet the demands of those markets, then prices start to go up, made worse by unregulated financial speculation (another quality of free market capitalism). And when resource availability starts dropping, the situation worsens.

Quote:

Which would happen with any economic system, would it not? Your argument does not track with any logic with which I am familiar and with the lack of supprting evidence and changing definitions it seems said logic is not supportable.

Definitely? Are you arguing that because these happen for "any economic system" then it doesn't apply to capitalism?

Quote:

They may be expanding markets, but they are not required specifically for a capitalistic economy so they do not apply to the REQUIREMENT you claim is part of capitalism.

The ability to access expanding markets is not required if your are talking about a centralized, state capitalist economy with no competition, full control of production and demand, no need to import any resources, and no possibility of shortages due to natural calamities, etc. Otherwise, even countries like Cuba and North Korea will have to produce surplus goods for trade.

Quote:

It is a good thing I did not make such a flawed claim.

I am referring to net profit and not gross profit. Remember, net profit is what you need to increase production, something important given competition, but not for the capitalist fantasy you envision.

Quote:

Or raise the selling price. The whole supply and demand aspect still eludes you. If there is an equilbirium between production (supply)and and the market (demand) the increase in production will not increase profit in the segment as a whole. An individual company may ncrease production if they capture more of the market share than before. If not the profit will decline because there is additional costs of materials and production for unsold product, which either must be sold at a discount or stored.

While your competitor does not. The issue isn't that "the whole supply and demand aspect still eludes" me. It's that you are imagining some closed system with no competition which makes your simplistic view of supply and demand possible.

Your last sentence is obvious. I'm not sure, though, if you are imagining some scenario where even businesses do not take risk.

Quote:

Then the selling prices would decline and the profits for all would decline UNLESS there is the expanding market you claim always exists. The problem is there is no requirement for increasing production to increase profit because those running businesses have a better grasp of economics than do you.

Why do you think businesses spend significant amounts of marketing and advertising, employ built-in obsolescence, and try to sell the same goods worldwide? Why do you think the demand for cars, sports shoes, cell phones, etc., are generally rising worldwide? Why do you think sales for these goods keep going up volume-wise worldwide?

Apparently, those running businesses have "a better grasp of economics than you do" as they realize that there's a growing global middle class that wants to copy what citizens do in rich countries, and are trying to meet the demand. Why "trying"? Because ultimately, what will cause production to decrease is not the absence of an expanding market but the lack of resources.

Thus, we have an economic system (capitalism) that requires growth and a planet that cannot meet that requirement.

Quote:

Assuming there is an expanding market, but then again the use of circular logic would be a small step in your flawed logic.

Actually, there is an expanding market, as seen in consumption of various resources in BRIC and emerging markets.

Quote:

Increasing production does not reduce cost if the production levels are not below that which the current managment can handle, materials costs are reduced by increased volume rather than increasing due to greater demand, and a bevy of other variables.

It does because it lowers the fixed cost per unit produced.

Quote:

The one you envision, maybe. The one we have in the real world? Not, likely at this point.

The next point, then. ;-)

Quote:

That makes it more of an unsupported opinion rather than a clear definitional requirement.

Or a supported conclusion based on a concise definition of capitalism.

Quote:

Wanting to grow is not the same as being required to grow. It seems we have changed the definition of "growth" again.

You can choose to "want to grow" as long as your competitor feels the same, or as long as you imagine some centralized capitalist economy as explained above.

Quote:

You mean like working for a Fortune 100 company for a couple of decades, starting my own company, and running it for a couple of decades? Direct responsibility for profit and loss counts right? You know that only a small percentage of companies survive the first five years and to survive for an extended period generally requires more than basic knowledge of business and econimics, right?

What I mean is understanding how competition and other factors lead to the growth requirement in capitalism.

Quote:

Yes, but you still used it didn't you. That is the only way you can claim the increase in GDP is required because there has been an increase in GDP.

As explained above, there are different reasons why economies want an increasing GDP.

Quote:

Except your explanation is based on flawed logic and unsupported assumptions as we have expalined to you earlier.

No, it's not. It's based on competition, the reality that even state capitalist economies need to import resources, etc.

Quote:

Wanting something to happen is not the point, you claimed growth is a requirement. If there is no growth the requirement is not met and capitalism fails and disappears .... except it did not.

It did not? What is "it"? Can you give an example of a capitalist (mixed or otherwise) economy that did not experience growth for decades and remains? Please look at GDP, because that's what is used to measure economic growth.

If you are referring to the global economy, can you show that it has not grown for several decades? In this case, please refer to global GDP.

Quote:

No, repeating the claim does not support the claim. The "essentially" connection show how weak your attempt to make the connection really is.

Are you saying that manufactured goods are not sold to the "masses"?

Quote:

No, I am not. I am speaking of the system in the US. If the companies produce the appropriate number of widgets the market consumes, there is no reason for any increase by the industry in general. Consumption of widgets is not infinite and if you increase production in excess of consumption you will decrease the profits more so than was reduced by the capital investments.

I am referring to the global economy. The demand for goods continues to grow worldwide, even with a global financial crisis caused by unregulated financial speculation.

The problem is that conventional oil production has not been able to catch up with demand, leading to higher prices for food and various "widgets". That is what's dampening consumption and not some deliberate choice by businesses to decrease consumption.

With that, "infinite" consumption will be the least of our worries because I don't think even consumption during the next two decades can be sustained. As the IEA puts it, just to maintain global GDP growth, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. That's not possible.

Quote:

I am not sure what you are seeing. You seem to bounce around changing definitions back and forth in the attempt to support the false claim made previously.

Your views of capitalism are based on a simplistic perception of supply and demand, with a capitalist economy self-sustaining, with no competition, and with centralized control of production and consumption.

After that, you mentioned that you are referring to the U.S. economy, which complicates matters further, as it is a reserve-currency economy with incredible levels of resource consumption (e.g., less than 5 pct of the world's economy consuming up to a quarter of world conventional oil production).

Quote:

That would not be the same with another ecnomic system that provided similar products and the ability to obtain them?

You're missing the point. Your claim that there is no expanding market is wrong.

Why do you keep talking about "another economic system"? If you keep doing, you will keep shooting yourself in the foot, e.g., claim that all economic systems require growth, and in another paragraph argue that capitalism does not.

Quote:

Really? Why do manufacturers not slow production as demand drops if your model is correct? You grab anecdotal points in making general statements which are seriously flawed.

Because in the real world demand for various goods and resources continues to grow globally because of a growing middle class in BRIC and emerging markets.

Remember, we're not just talking about the U.S. economy...or your computer-generated economy.

Quote:

And off you go on a tangent ....

Actually, that's what's leading to a decrease in production, especially conventional oil, and not the claims that you made.

Quote:

No, it is not unless you change the definition of growth as you have done a few times in this post.

That's because there are different types of growth: gross profit, net profit, volume of goods manufactured, etc. For capitalism, what you want is net profit, because that's what you need for capital.

Quote:

If you short sale the stocks, yes. You can short sell and make a profit on stock prices which drop.

But the one who has to buy the stocks from you loses, and he has to wait for the price to go up again so that he can recover. For that to happen, the stock market has to go up once more.

What happens when the stock market goes on a permanent decline, which is what I imagine you mean by a capitalist system that doesn't require growth? Do you think you will be able to continue making money through the stock market in the long run?

Thus, what you want is a stock market that keeps going up, even if there is an occasional decline.

Quote:

If there market is sufficiently large, yes they can.

The global market is sufficiently large. In fact, it is too large given resource availability.

Quote:

Yes, people WANT growth, but that does not make it a REQUIREMENT as we have been telling you all along.

Again, we're back to your fantasy of a centralized economy with full control of production and demand. Thus, people need to survive, which means what is manufactured is what will allow them to survive. Any profit is made only to meet any increasing demand due to an increase in population or to produce surplus goods as a buffer against emergencies such as natural calamities, etc.

Quote:

So your beliefs in the specifics of one economy refute the generalization of a capitalistic economy because you wish it to be so, but any specifics that refute your generalizations are not important. Do you not see a double standard in this position?

Specifics of one economy? I'm referring to the global economy, which encompasses individual ones!

Actually, what you just wrote refers to YOU: either the specifics of the U.S. economy or some fantasy centralized economy refuting what is currently happening in the global economy.

In short, since U.S. companies are making profits by laying off people and earning through financial speculation, then that means the U.S. (by "U.S.," do you mean the majority of citizens or only a few?) can profit without growth (e.g., low GDP increase?).

And that's proof that a "steady state economy" works?

Quote:

No, that is your straw man, not my position.

How else can I explain your simplistic views of supply and demand, businesses producing just right to meet demand, demand always sufficiently met by production, the absence of competition (which no longer needs over-production), and with no need to import resources?

where he mentions that he talks about a "steady state economy," which he believes is neither capitalism nor socialism. Daly also argues that unlike SSEE, capitalists and socialists argue that their systems would ensure growth. Finally, he states that the "evils of capitalism" are real.

Finally, it is asked at the end of the first link, if SSEE is neither capitalist nor socialist, then what is it?

My guess is that it is part of environmental economics (well, those are the last two words in the phrase describing the system!) and will take only elements of various economic systems, e.g., private ownership from capitalism but concern for people and the environment rather than profits from socialism. It is market-driven only to the point of meeting people's needs rather than the use of market forces in capitalism to meet both needs and wants.

Ultimately, it is environmental in nature because care for the environment is the only way to ensure availability of resources to meet people's needs. But how to make sure that people will not move to wants (i.e., things they don't need)? Presumably, knowledge of the environment (e.g., resource depletion, the effects of pollution) will minimize that. In short, protecting the environment will make sure that people get what they need and encourage them not to seek more than what they need, as seeking more may lead to more resource depletion and pollution.

With that, I completely agree with Daly's views and with what Blindpig wrote. I would also like to add that others have similar views, usually in reference to localization and transition communities. For example, see

Which one EXACTLY has this requirement. If you cannot support your claim I am not digging through a list of references looking for what I know does not exist.

See below. I will not spoon-feed you for the rest.

As long as I do not have to make a leap of faith to a conclusion, such as reading between the lines or making an assumption unsupported by the information presented, that should work. If there is no such support you will be conceding your error?

Quote:

Quote:

This is an abstract for a paper on the subject of capitalism rather than a definition, so there will be more depth and nuance, but I do not see the critical requirement for continual growth listed. If it is such an important part of a definition and one you have been asked to show any referenced support, I would expect a "good" definition to have that necessary aspect clearly listed. Yet I do not see it, but I do see a reference to private ownership.

It is not an "abstract for a paper" but an abstract for a dictionary entry. You will not find a source online that is suitable for your needs unless you pay or look for published sources.

An abstract for a dictionary entry? I have never seen a dictionary whose entries were as long as the abstract, much less long enough to need one. I believe you are reading too much into the title of the site.

Quote:

The reason for the growth requirement was explained to you numerous times: the profit earned from sales is plowed back into the business or in another business (if it's deposited in a bank). That's the capital needed to purchase capital goods, etc., and increase production.

Yes, but that starts with the premise that production must be increased in capitalism, which is not a requirement either.

Quote:

The scenario that you are looking at is what resembles state capitalism, with authoritarian control over production and even demand, and likely based on the assumption of self-sufficiency (e.g., no need to import resources).

No, it is the system we have here in the US if you knew half as much about is as you seem to believe you do. There is never unlimited demand for anything including survival necessities.

Quote:

This is the situation that takes place in countries such as Cuba and North Korea, except that they cannot ensure self-sufficiency, which means if devastating weather during one year destroys crops or oil prices go up, then the country is forced to seek surplus production from other countries.

This never happens in a capitalistic economy? Capitalist never import food from say the US?

That is why Canada, Japan, and the EU were destinations for the largest export of ag goods the US had for over 20 years? China is now at the top, but those three are still there too.

Quote:

Quote:

Capitalism is a unique historical formation with core institutions and distinct movements. It involves the rise of a mercantile class, the separation of production from the state, and a mentality of rational calculation. Its characteristic logic revolving around the accumulation of capital reflects the omnipresence of competition. It displays broad tendencies to unprecedented wealth creation, skewed size distributions of enterprise, large public sectors, and cycles of activity. Whereas students of capitalism traditionally envisaged an end to the capitalist period of history, modern economists show little interest in historical projection.

Notice that the only way to avoid "accumulation of capital" is to remove "competition."

I see your problem. It seems to be reading comprehension or logical progression because there is no way to get your statement from that abstract. Nothing limits accumulation of capital in other systems or that competition removal is the only way to prevent such accumulation. This also belies the understanding of history of capitalism where the ultimate goal of some companies was to control all aspects of a market thus creating a monopoly to increase their profit. A monopoly by definition is the lack of competition and using your flawed logic should have avoided the accumulation of capital .... except it did not.

Quote:

In short, your vision of capitalism is one that doesn't involve competition, such as a very centralized state capitalist economy with insignificant imports, and very likely authoritarian control over the populace.

No, the version of which I spoke is the version with which I work every day.

Quote:

Quote:

You seem to be clueless. You can grow and still not make a profit on that growth. You can also grow and remove the profit you had at a previous level. It has been done in the past and can be found today. You can also have profit without any growth. That has been done in the past and can also be found today. Growth is not required for profit and profit is not required for growth, it is that simple. The former can be sustained but the latter cannot. The problem is sustainability is not required in the general statement you made.

You need to bring in competition, "additional overhead costs," etc.

I did include them, just like in the real world.

Quote:

For example, you can continue to increase production while increasing costs, which means flat or no profits. That's what you mean by growth without profits. But if your competitor can increase production as well while keeping his costs low, then he can sell the same goods as you do at a lower price.

If the competitor can? If frogs had wings they would not bump their butts on the ground. If the competitor cannot the example stands. I did not make the sweeping generalization you did, so it does not have to cover every aspect, just enough to disprove your claim, which it did.

Quote:

Soon, more will buy from him and not from you. He can also increase his production and sell to markets that you cannot reach, giving him a larger market share.

Where exactly does this ability to produce more product cheaper end? Or are you also assuming that does not happen so we have a second competitor undercutting the first and a third undercutting the second until we are paid to take the product and the company is making obscene profits .... in theory.

Quote:

Quote:

Now you seem to be using a completely different definition of "growth" than before.

Growth can mean a profit, an increase in profit from the previous year, or an increase in production from the previous year.

So you are using different definitions interchangeably thus making the discussion useless.

Quote:

What state capitalism requires is an increase in production from the previous year to meet demand.

Assuming there is an increase in demand, which is false. The buggy whip market for example has not seen much growth for a century now.

Quote:

For free market capitalism, businesses need to ultimately increase profits, even if it means sacrificing it to gain market share.

It needs to increase profit even if it means sacrificing profit to gain market share? Talk about a contradictory statement. It would be more correct to indicate the desire rather than the assumption of a need.

Quote:

Otherwise, as pointed out above, they will lose to their competitors.

Someone has to lose to a competitor if one increases their market share. The share has to come from someone who, according to you, needs to increase profit in order to be part of the capitalistic economy.

Quote:

National economies look at GDP, which consists of investments and spending. In order to attract foreign investors and to receive better lending terms, governments need to show positive GDP growth rates.

Investors do not invest in national economies per se, they invest in particular companies. For national level borrowing the only requirement is for there to be a perceived relative stability and ability to repay the loans in order to receive the better terms. Rates are relative to the market as well.

Quote:

I think the WB recommends a growth rate that is at least three times higher than the birth rate in order to maintain present spending levels. But if citizens want more houses, cars, better health care, roads, etc., then the growth rate has to be better.

People always want things they do not need, and the problem is that you claimed a requirement which is not related to wants.

Quote:

Quote:

You seem to assume that without growth as you had previously defined it (not the new adding wealth to the company via profit) there must be decline. This is also false. A steady state of sales will generate the same range of profit potential as growth. You can increase the profit by reducing costs. You can maintain the same profit by keeping the same cost to selling price ratio so any cost increases result in proportional selling price increases. You can also have less profit if you increase the costs without the same ration of selling price increase.

A "steady state of sales" can take place as long as there's no competition.

No, it can take place with competition when the competitors all have the relatively same technology and costs, which is far more common than you seem to believe.

Quote:

In this case, centralized control ensures that all businesses selling goods work together and produce only what is demanded.

That is always the desire of any company because production of products without demand means costs of those items ties up capital which can only be recovered through the sale of the product, usually at a heavy discount and possibly at a loss.

Quote:

In a free market capitalist economy, however, some businesses may try to sell more goods as a lower price to increase market share, etc.

They may, but selling more at a lower price does not equal increased profits unless a certain amount is sold. In fact my example of increased production giving the same profit is more easily attained in this case.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, that is the definition of net profit, but that is not the only definition of profit. Gross profit is also called profit and that is the differential between selling price and cost.

I am referring to net profit, because that's the one you can use to increase production, and if you keep your overhead costs the same, lead to lower prices of goods sold.

If you CAN keep your overhead costs the same, which is not possible with any significant increase in production in the real world.

Quote:

Given that, you only need to hope that there's either no competition or that your competitor will not make a net profit.

HUH?

Quote:

Quote:

If you do not increase costs or selling prices and do not decrease the selling price, you will maintain the same profit as in the previous period. If you want to increase your profit, you can increase the price, increase the volume, add new products or services, or decrease the costs. All are possible in the current economy.

Meanwhile, your competitor can choose to sell goods at a lower price and thus control a larger market share.

If they sell at a lower price they will make less profit unless they can ramp up production and take a large enough section of the market, which is not probable in the real world. It is a gamble that will more likely result in lower profits or at best stagnant profits, which according to you is opposite to the requirement.

Quote:

He can also use his profits to increase production and reach a market that you can't.

How if he does not make more profit than before? You seem to be dealing with some fantasy economy.

Quote:

I think what you have been trying to do is ignore competition and imagine some steady state economy guaranteed by some centralized, authoritarian control.

No, it is you that does not understand competition. Competitors generally have similar costs, technologies, etc. so the profit margins are similar. If this is not the case the competitor with the edge on costs quickly drives the competition out of business. That is what happened to the four competitors I had when I started my company. I also purchased the equipment of two of them as surplus equipment sales. In a steady competition, this is not the case unless and until some new technology or cost variable comes into play.

Quote:

Quote:

Except when there is a global recession or depression and the expanding markets are largely gone. The only markets that will always expand with population are those required for survival.

Keep in mind that "a global recession or depression" is something that capitalists do not like. If any, you just proved my point.

No, because "not liking something" does not make the inverse a requirement. That seems to be your problem in leaping to absolutes which are not logically supportable.

Quote:

Quote:

Using your flawed definition, but that is why we disagree on the definition.

Actually, I gave a concise definition. Your definition is flawed because it assumes that capitalism doesn't involve competition, and thus there is no need to profit, etc.

No, my definition makes no such assumption because it is built on the present system with examples from the real world economy to refute your claim of a requirement.

Quote:

Quote:

You mean growth as in profit? That is different from the growth in wealth you switched to earlier. In either case your logic is flawed as there is not such requirement. It is a goal for many groups, but NOT a requirement for a capitalistic economy.

Again, don't be confused. I am referring to net profit, not gross profit.

But you use at least three definitions of growth interchangeably:

Quote:

Growth can mean a profit, an increase in profit from the previous year, or an increase in production from the previous year

Quote:

It is a requirement for a capitalist economy because the net profit is the source of capital needed to increase production, either to meet increasing demand in state capitalist systems or because of competition, as seen in free market capitalist economies.

Assuming there is a need to increase production in this circular logic. Capitalism requires profit for increased production, capitalism requires increased production to maintain profit, and neither is shown to be a true requirement in the real world.

Quote:

Several examples were already given, and even your own examples--concerning the stock market, etc.--are shown to be part of the same. Do you remember? I mentioned them in my previous message.

I remember them an even understand them, which seems to be part of the problem in that you do not.

Quote:

Quote:

If resource availability compounded by environmental damage and global warming cannot meet the demands of those markets, then prices start to go up, made worse by unregulated financial speculation (another quality of free market capitalism). And when resource availability starts dropping, the situation worsens.

Quote:

Which would happen with any economic system, would it not? Your argument does not track with any logic with which I am familiar and with the lack of supporting evidence and changing definitions it seems said logic is not supportable.

Definitely? Are you arguing that because these happen for "any economic system" then it doesn't apply to capitalism?

No, just trying to understand if there was a point here and it seems there was not.

Quote:

Quote:

They may be expanding markets, but they are not required specifically for a capitalistic economy so they do not apply to the REQUIREMENT you claim is part of capitalism.

The ability to access expanding markets is not required if your are talking about a centralized, state capitalist economy with no competition, full control of production and demand, no need to import any resources, and no possibility of shortages due to natural calamities, etc. Otherwise, even countries like Cuba and North Korea will have to produce surplus goods for trade.

No, your attempt to create straw men out of my statements do not work. The US economy with competition has the same criteria.

Quote:

Quote:

It is a good thing I did not make such a flawed claim.

I am referring to net profit and not gross profit. Remember, net profit is what you need to increase production, something important given competition, but not for the capitalist fantasy you envision.

Important is still not required and the capitalist fantasy in which I am working and basing my examples upon is called the US of A 2013.

Quote:

Quote:

Or raise the selling price. The whole supply and demand aspect still eludes you. If there is an equilibrium between production (supply)and the market (demand) the increase in production will not increase profit in the segment as a whole. An individual company may increase production if they capture more of the market share than before. If not the profit will decline because there is additional costs of materials and production for unsold product, which either must be sold at a discount or stored.

While your competitor does not. The issue isn't that "the whole supply and demand aspect still eludes" me. It's that you are imagining some closed system with no competition which makes your simplistic view of supply and demand possible.

No, I am not dealing with a closed system, but the real world. Notice that when a major airline has a price increase, most of the others also follow with similar increases? How and why do you think that happens given your claims on just increasing production? The competitors should hold the prices the same and enjoy the increased sales in your world, but in the real world the costs have probably increased to the point that ALL of the competitors are in similar conditions.

Quote:

Your last sentence is obvious. I'm not sure, though, if you are imagining some scenario where even businesses do not take risk.

Business IS a risk just by operating.

Quote:

Quote:

Then the selling prices would decline and the profits for all would decline UNLESS there is the expanding market you claim always exists. The problem is there is no requirement for increasing production to increase profit because those running businesses have a better grasp of economics than do you.

Why do you think businesses spend significant amounts of marketing and advertising, employ built-in obsolescence, and try to sell the same goods worldwide? Why do you think the demand for cars, sports shoes, cell phones, etc., are generally rising worldwide? Why do you think sales for these goods keep going up volume-wise worldwide?

And the market for mustache wax, buggy whips, AM radios, cassette tape players, etc. are growing? There are limits to every market in the real world.

Quote:

Apparently, those running businesses have "a better grasp of economics than you do" as they realize that there's a growing global middle class that wants to copy what citizens do in rich countries, and are trying to meet the demand. Why "trying"? Because ultimately, what will cause production to decrease is not the absence of an expanding market but the lack of resources.

That would be an oxymoron since I am also running businesses so I must now know more than myself?

Quote:

Thus, we have an economic system (capitalism) that requires growth and a planet that cannot meet that requirement.

No, the requirement is still a flawed statement. Some of the businesses WANT such growth but it is still not required as much as you try to repeat it into existence.

Quote:

Quote:

Assuming there is an expanding market, but then again the use of circular logic would be a small step in your flawed logic.

Actually, there is an expanding market, as seen in consumption of various resources in BRIC and emerging markets.

Would you care to purchase a buggy whip manufacturer to capitalize on that expanding market? (pun intended)

Quote:

Quote:

Increasing production does not reduce cost if the production levels are not below that which the current management can handle, materials costs are reduced by increased volume rather than increasing due to greater demand, and a bevy of other variables.

It does because it lowers the fixed cost per unit produced.

Which ignores the overhead costs and the increases in the cost of materials due to increased demand, as I stated in the post. Switching back and forth between definitions in order to try to confuse is a sure sign of a weak argument, BTW.

Quote:

Quote:

That makes it more of an unsupported opinion rather than a clear definitional requirement.

Or a supported conclusion based on a concise definition of capitalism.

Only if you also change the definition of "supported", "concise", and "definition" to something other than the currently accepted versions.

Quote:

Quote:

Wanting to grow is not the same as being required to grow. It seems we have changed the definition of "growth" again.

You can choose to "want to grow" as long as your competitor feels the same, or as long as you imagine some centralized capitalist economy as explained above.

The competitor may not have much of a choice as is the case in the real world economics.

Quote:

Quote:

You mean like working for a Fortune 100 company for a couple of decades, starting my own company, and running it for a couple of decades? Direct responsibility for profit and loss counts right? You know that only a small percentage of companies survive the first five years and to survive for an extended period generally requires more than basic knowledge of business and economics, right?

What I mean is understanding how competition and other factors lead to the growth requirement in capitalism.

So I just need to not know reality and believe this assumption? Not hardly.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, but you still used it didn't you. That is the only way you can claim the increase in GDP is required because there has been an increase in GDP.

As explained above, there are different reasons why economies want an increasing GDP.

Wanting is NOT a requirement by any means, yet you still try to equate the two. This leap of logic is evident throughout your presentation.

Quote:

Quote:

Except your explanation is based on flawed logic and unsupported assumptions as we have explained to you earlier.

No, it's not. It's based on competition, the reality that even state capitalist economies need to import resources, etc.

As do non-state capitalist economies, the competition is there but not as flexible as you envision.

Quote:

Quote:

Wanting something to happen is not the point, you claimed growth is a requirement. If there is no growth the requirement is not met and capitalism fails and disappears .... except it did not.

It did not? What is "it"?

Capitalism, the subject which required growth but did not get it.

Quote:

Can you give an example of a capitalist (mixed or otherwise) economy that did not experience growth for decades and remains?

No, because there has been growth in population, which would cause ANY economic system to show growth. Can you give an example of an non-capitalist economy that showed no growth for decades? If it showed growth would it not then be capitalistic?

Quote:

Please look at GDP, because that's what is used to measure economic growth.

If you are referring to the global economy, can you show that it has not grown for several decades? In this case, please refer to global GDP.

Correlation is not causation nor does it provide evidence of a requirement.

Quote:

Quote:

No, repeating the claim does not support the claim. The "essentially" connection show how weak your attempt to make the connection really is.

Are you saying that manufactured goods are not sold to the "masses"?

No, I am saying your "connection" between the two aspects is flawed, just as I stated.

Quote:

Quote:

No, I am not. I am speaking of the system in the US. If the companies produce the appropriate number of widgets the market consumes, there is no reason for any increase by the industry in general. Consumption of widgets is not infinite and if you increase production in excess of consumption you will decrease the profits more so than was reduced by the capital investments.

I am referring to the global economy. The demand for goods continues to grow worldwide, even with a global financial crisis caused by unregulated financial speculation.

Every economy is capitalistic and the US is not?

Quote:

The problem is that conventional oil production has not been able to catch up with demand, leading to higher prices for food and various "widgets". That is what's dampening consumption and not some deliberate choice by businesses to decrease consumption.

Which has nothing to do with a requirement or not.

Quote:

Quote:

I am not sure what you are seeing. You seem to bounce around changing definitions back and forth in the attempt to support the false claim made previously.

Your views of capitalism are based on a simplistic perception of supply and demand, with a capitalist economy self-sustaining, with no competition, and with centralized control of production and consumption.

No, that is your straw man presentation of my real world examples.

Quote:

After that, you mentioned that you are referring to the U.S. economy, which complicates matters further, as it is a reserve-currency economy with incredible levels of resource consumption (e.g., less than 5 pct of the world's economy consuming up to a quarter of world conventional oil production).

So, it is not capitalistic? I suppose if you are changing definitions you can do so until something fits.

Quote:

Quote:

That would not be the same with another comic system that provided similar products and the ability to obtain them?

You're missing the point. Your claim that there is no expanding market is wrong.

NO! I am claiming there is no REQUIREMENT for an expanding market, which is far different from your straw man presentation.

Quote:

Why do you keep talking about "another economic system"? If you keep doing, you will keep shooting yourself in the foot, e.g., claim that all economic systems require growth, and in another paragraph argue that capitalism does not.

I do not claim they REQUIRE growth, but that they WANT growth, which is a clear and precise difference.

Quote:

Quote:

Really? Why do manufacturers not slow production as demand drops if your model is correct? You grab anecdotal points in making general statements which are seriously flawed.

Because in the real world demand for various goods and resources continues to grow globally because of a growing middle class in BRIC and emerging markets.

So you claim that manufacturers do not slow production as demand drops because you believe demand never drops?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Worldwide crude steel output dropped 1.2% in 2008, as global demand for manufactured goods fell in the second half of the year, according to an industry report released Thursday.

The World Steel Association said production of crude steel fell 24.3% in December, compared to December 2007, marking the fourth straight month of year-over-year declines

Quote:

Remember, we're not just talking about the U.S. economy...or your computer-generated economy.

And you are still just as wrong.

Quote:

Quote:

No, it is not unless you change the definition of growth as you have done a few times in this post.

That's because there are different types of growth: gross profit, net profit, volume of goods manufactured, etc. For capitalism, what you want is net profit, because that's what you need for capital

.

How many definitions do you use for the same term?

Quote:

Growth can mean a profit, an increase in profit from the previous year, or an increase in production from the previous year

Quote:

Quote:

If you short sale the stocks, yes. You can short sell and make a profit on stock prices which drop.

But the one who has to buy the stocks from you loses, and he has to wait for the price to go up again so that he can recover. For that to happen, the stock market has to go up once more.

That second person does not have to make a profit. Your example was that without growth there is no profit and this shows where a profit can be made without increases.

Quote:

What happens when the stock market goes on a permanent decline, which is what I imagine you mean by a capitalist system that doesn't require growth? Do you think you will be able to continue making money through the stock market in the long run?

Now the example must be a continued process to be valid? That sound you hear is goal posts moving.

Quote:

Thus, what you want is a stock market that keeps going up, even if there is an occasional decline.

Yes, WANT, not required.

Quote:

Quote:

If there market is sufficiently large, yes they can.

The global market is sufficiently large. In fact, it is too large given resource availability.

The global market for buggy whips is that large? No, you are interchanging the definition of total market with product market just as you do with the term growth. The use of multiple definitions used inconsistently shows you have no ability to support your position with actual evidence but have to resort to trickery.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, people WANT growth, but that does not make it a REQUIREMENT as we have been telling you all along.

Again, we're back to your fantasy of a centralized economy with full control of production and demand.

No, I was referencing your post. "Do you see? Everyone wants to see economic growth, and that ultimately means more profits."

Quote:

Thus, people need to survive, which means what is manufactured is what will allow them to survive.

I fail to see how an I-pad is critical for the survival of many people, but then again that is the case with most of your position.

Quote:

Any profit is made only to meet any increasing demand due to an increase in population or to produce surplus goods as a buffer against emergencies such as natural calamities, etc.

Companies produce more I-pads in case there is natural calamity?

Quote:

Quote:

So your beliefs in the specifics of one economy refute the generalization of a capitalistic economy because you wish it to be so, but any specifics that refute your generalizations are not important. Do you not see a double standard in this position?

Specifics of one economy? I'm referring to the global economy, which encompasses individual ones!

You are referencing several things at the same time it seems, no clear definition follows through your discussion at all. The definition changes randomly as does the reference.

Quote:

Actually, what you just wrote refers to YOU: either the specifics of the U.S. economy or some fantasy centralized economy refuting what is currently happening in the global economy

.

So the global economy is capitalism now? The US is not capitalism but the world is? Can you be more wrong in the use of changing definitions?

Quote:

In short, since U.S. companies are making profits by laying off people and earning through financial speculation, then that means the U.S. (by "U.S.," do you mean the majority of citizens or only a few?) can profit without growth (e.g., low GDP increase?).

And that's proof that a "steady state economy" works?

It is proof growth is not required for a profit in a capitalistic economy.

Quote:

Quote:

No, that is your straw man, not my position.

How else can I explain your simplistic views of supply and demand, businesses producing just right to meet demand, demand always sufficiently met by production, the absence of competition (which no longer needs over-production), and with no need to import resources?

By not misrepresenting my position would be a good start. That is the real definition of a straw man.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Growth which is used without reference but may be defined at any time as:

Quote:

That's because there are different types of growth: gross profit, net profit, volume of goods manufactured, etc. For capitalism, what you want is net profit, because that's what you need for capital

or

Quote:

Growth can mean a profit, an increase in profit from the previous year, or an increase in production from the previous year

And capitalism is defined as being the world economy and not the US economy because the world economy is capitalistic even though many of the individuals countries are not,

Quote:

I am referring to the global economy. The demand for goods continues to grow worldwide, even with a global financial crisis caused by unregulated financial speculation.

such as the largest single economy in the world, the US.

Quote:

After that, you mentioned that you are referring to the U.S. economy, which complicates matters further, as it is a reserve-currency economy with incredible levels of resource consumption (e.g., less than 5 pct of the world's economy consuming up to a quarter of world conventional oil production).

I hope this is now as clear to everyone else as it is to me. Clear as mud.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein